Abstract

Footnotes (258)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2209875. ; Size: 388K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Going Rogue: Stop the Beach Renourishment as an Object of Morbid Fascination

Scholarly response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection has focused on the plurality's strong advocacy of a judicial takings doctrine. We take a different tack. While the concept of judicial takings is worthy of serious attention, it is wrong to treat the plurality opinion as an ordinary object of analysis. It is, instead, the emanation of a Court going rogue.

Three basic symptoms of the pathology stand out. First, sleight of hand: The plurality opinion purports to be about an institutional issue -- can a state court commit a taking? -- while slipping in a major rewrite of takings law that would undermine the Court's recent, unanimous effort to clarify it.

Second, feigned obliviousness: The plurality opinion conveniently overlooks the Court's federalism jurisprudence even as it would expand the federal courts' power over state law.

Third, knowing artlessness: Despite being written as a virtuoso performance -- identifying a case the Florida Supreme Court "overlooked" -- the plurality's treatment of state law betrays surprising naivete‚ as to how state law is made, though, as it turns out, this seeming naivete‚ serves the purpose of shifting power within states from legislatures to courts.

While the history and tone of Justice Scalia's close attention to beach access issues makes pique a surprisingly strong candidate for why the plurality went rogue, the more worrying explanation is the willingness of the more conservative members of the Court to expand their own power into new areas of state law without the slightest sign of support from the political branches. There is a danger that conservative attacks on the courts over decisions on controversial social issues will distract from a more basic problem: If the Court's enforcement of federalism rests on what Justice O'Connor called Congress's "underdeveloped capacity for self-restraint," we suggest that commentary should focus on the Court's own similarly underdeveloped capacity.